The uptake of predictive DNA testing in 40 families with a pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 variant. An evaluation of the proband-mediated procedure

Uptake of Cascade Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the uptake of cascade genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Among 30 studies included for meta-analysis, the uptake of cascade genetic testing was 33% (95% CI 25%-42%), with higher uptake rates among females compared with male relatives, and among first-degree compared with second-degree relatives. These findings indicate suboptimal uptake of cascade genetic testing among people at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, representing a missed opportunity for cancer prevention and early detection. There is a need for interventions to improve uptake rates.

How hereditary cancer risk disclosure to relatives is handled in practice - Patient perspectives from a Swedish cancer genetics clinic

OBJECTIVES

Hereditary cancer risks can be effectively managed if at-risk relatives enroll in surveillance and preventive care. Family-mediated risk disclosure has internationally been shown to be incomplete, selective and leave over a third of eligible at-risk individuals without access to genetic counseling. We explored patients handling of cancer risk information in practice.

METHODS

We conducted twelve semi-structured interviews with patients who had completed their genetic counseling and been asked to disclose risk information to relatives. Questions were designed to investigate lived experiences of communicating hereditary risk and focused on disclosure strategies, intrafamilial interactions and emotional responses.

RESULTS

Qualitative content analysis yielded five categories. These span personal fears, shared responsibilities, feeling of empowerment, innovative solutions and unmet needs. Patients put high value on collaboration with their genetic healthcare professionals but also solicited better overview of the counseling process and more personalized, case-tailored information.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results add novel insights about the practical strategies employed by genetic counselees and their motivations behind disclosing hereditary risk information to relatives.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A patient-centered cancer genetics care would clarify roles and responsibilities around risk disclosure, inform counselees about the process upfront and tailor information to offer case-specific data with the family's inheritance pattern explained.

Clinician perspectives on policy approaches to genetic risk disclosure in families

Genomic sequencing has emerged as a powerful tool with significant implications for patients and their relatives, however, empirical evidence suggests that effective dissemination of risk information within families remains a challenge. Policy responses to address this issue vary across countries, with Belgium notably lacking specific regulations governing nondisclosure of genetic risk. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians from Belgian clinical genetics centers to gain insight into their perspectives on policy approaches to the disclosure of genetic risk within families. Using real-world examples of legislation and court rulings from France, Australia, and the UK, we explored clinician viewpoints on the roles and responsibilities of both patients and clinicians in the family communication process. Clinicians expressed confusion regarding what was legally permissible regarding contacting at-risk relatives. While there was a consensus among participants that patients have a responsibility to inform their at-risk relatives, participants were hesitant to support the legal enforcement of this duty. Clinicians mostly recognized some responsibility to at-risk relatives, but the extent of this responsibility was a subject of division. Our findings highlight the need for a comprehensive policy that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of clinicians and patients to inform at-risk relatives. Furthermore, the study underscores the practical challenges clinicians face in supporting patients through the complex process of family communication, suggesting a need for additional resources and the exploration of alternative approaches to communication.

Modes of responsibility in disclosing cancer genetic test results to relatives: An analysis of Swiss and Korean narrative data

OBJECTIVE

We examined how responsibility (the "duty to inform relatives about genetic testing results") is understood and enacted among Swiss and Korean women carrying BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

METHODS

In-depth interviews and/or focus groups with 46 Swiss and 22 Korean carriers were conducted, using an identical interview guide. Data were analyzed inductively and translated into English for cross-country comparisons.

RESULTS

We identified five modes of responsibility in both samples: Persuader, Enabler, Relayer, Delayer, and Decliner. The Enabler and Relayer modes were the most common in both countries. They followed the rational imperative of health and norms of competence and self-determination, respectively. The Relayer mode transmitted information without trying to influence relatives' decisions. The Delayer and Decliner modes withheld information, deeming it the best way to safeguard the family during that specific moment of its trajectory. Responsibility to disclose testing results was influenced by culturally diverging conceptions of the family unit and socio-contextual norms.

CONCLUSION

Responsibility primarily reflects the imperative of health prevention; findings demonstrate various interpretations, including the sense of family caring achieved through controlled disclosure of genetic information.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings offer healthcare providers socio-anthropological insights to assist probands navigate the disclosure of genetic information within their families.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04214210 (registered Nov 2, 2020), KCT 0005643 (registered Nov 23, 2020).

Strategies to improve implementation of cascade testing in hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review

Hereditary cancer syndromes constitute approximately 10% of all cancers. Cascade testing involves testing of at-risk relatives to determine if they carry the familial pathogenic variant. Despite growing efforts targeted at improving cascade testing uptake, current literature continues to reflect poor rates of uptake, typically below 30%. This study aims to systematically review current literature on intervention strategies to improve cascade testing, assess the quality of intervention descriptions and evaluate the implementation outcomes of listed interventions. We searched major databases using keywords and subject heading of "cascade testing". Interventions proposed in each study were classified according to the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. Quality of intervention description was assessed using the TIDieR checklist, and evaluation of implementation outcomes was performed using Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework. Improvements in rates of genetic testing uptake was seen in interventions across the different EPOC taxonomy strategies. The average TIDieR score was 7.3 out of 12. Items least reported include modifications (18.5%), plans to assess fidelity/adherence (7.4%) and actual assessment of fidelity/adherence (7.4%). An average of 2.9 out of 8 aspects of implementation outcomes were examined. The most poorly reported outcomes were cost, fidelity and sustainability, with only 3.7% of studies reporting them. Most interventions have demonstrated success in improving cascade testing uptake. Uptake of cascade testing was highest with delivery arrangement (68%). However, the quality of description of interventions and assessment of implementation outcomes are often suboptimal, hindering their replication and implementation downstream. Therefore, further adoption of standardized guidelines in reporting of interventions and formal assessment of implementation outcomes may help promote translation of these interventions into routine practice.

Risk-reducing decisions regarding germline BRCA pathogenic variant: focusing on the timing of genetic testing and RRSO

BACKGROUND

In Japan, the public insurance policy was revised in 2020 to cover hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), including genetic testing and surveillance, for patients with breast cancer (BC). Consequently, the demand for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) has increased. This study aimed to clarify the changes in the demand and timing of genetic testing and RRSO associated with public insurance coverage for HBOC in Japan.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 350 women with germline BRCA (gBRCA) pathogenic variants (PVs) who had visited gynaecologists; they received gBRCA genetic testing at 45.1±10.6 (20-74) years. The use of medical testing and preventive treatment was compared between the preinsurance and postinsurance groups using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that RRSO rates doubled from 31.4% to 62.6% among patients with gBRCA-PV. The implementation rate was 32.4% among unaffected carriers and 70.3% among BC-affected patients. Younger patients received genetic testing with significantly shorter intervals between BC diagnosis and genetic testing and between genetic testing and RRSO.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the insurance coverage for HBOC patients with BC has increased the frequency of RRSO in Japan. However, a comparison between the number of probands and family members indicated that the diagnosis among family members is inadequate. The inequality in the use of genetic services by socioeconomic groups is an issue of further concern.

Disclosure of genetic risk in the family: A survey of the Flemish general population

OBJECTIVES

Results from genomic sequencing often have implications not just for patients but also for their relatives. To date, there are no studies in Belgium exploring whether potential relatives would want to be informed of a genetic risk in the family and their preferences on different approaches to disclosure.

METHODS

We surveyed the attitudes of the Flemish general population (n = 407) towards receiving genetic information from their family members, including attitudes towards breaches in confidentiality, preferences for who communicates genetic risk and how the information is communicated, and policy approaches to nondisclosure.

RESULTS

Most participants wanted to be informed of their genetic risk and receive genetic testing to confirm their diagnosis. Most preferred to be informed of genetic risk by a close family member, but that when given the choice between a distant family member and a clinician, most participants preferred to be contacted by a clinician.

CONCLUSION

In Belgium there is currently no clear legal pathway for clinicians to directly initiate contact with at-risk relatives, but the responses from members of the Flemish population analyzed in this study indicate that this approach to disclosure of genetic risk deserves further consideration. Our findings indicate that the general population would support legislation allowing clinicians to inform relatives even in cases where the patient did not want to inform them. As this is not currently allowed in Belgium, policy alternatives should be considered.

The most efficient and effective BRCA1/2 testing strategy in epithelial ovarian cancer: Tumor-First or Germline-First?

OBJECTIVE

Genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) is essential to identify a hereditary cause like a germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV). An efficient strategy for genetic testing in OC is highly desired. We evaluated costs and effects of two strategies; (i) Tumor-First strategy, using a tumor DNA test as prescreen to germline testing, and (ii) Germline-First strategy, referring all patients to the clinical geneticist for germline testing.

METHODS

Tumor-First and Germline-First were compared in two scenarios; using real-world uptake of testing and setting implementation to 100%. Decision analytic models were built to analyze genetic testing costs (including counseling) per OC patient and per family as well as BRCA1/2 detection probabilities. With a Markov model, the life years gained among female relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV was investigated.

RESULTS

Focusing on real-world uptake, with the Tumor-First strategy more OC patients and relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV are detected (70% versus 49%), at lower genetic testing costs (€1898 versus €2502 per patient, and €2511 versus €2930 per family). Thereby, female relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV can live on average 0.54 life years longer with Tumor-First compared to Germline-First. Focusing on 100% uptake, the genetic testing costs per OC patient are substantially lower in the Tumor-First strategy (€2257 versus €4986).

CONCLUSIONS

The Tumor-First strategy in OC patients is more effective in identifying germline BRCA1/2 PV at lower genetic testing costs per patient and per family. Optimal implementation of Tumor-First can further improve detection of heredity in OC patients.

Privacy and utility of genetic testing in families with hereditary cancer syndromes living in three countries: the international cascade genetic screening experience

Background: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome are associated with increased lifetime risk for common cancers. Offering cascade genetic testing to cancer-free relatives of individuals with HBOC or LS is a public health intervention for cancer prevention. Yet, little is known about the utility and value of information gained from cascade testing. This paper discusses ELSI encountered during the implementation of cascade testing in three countries with national healthcare systems: Switzerland, Korea, and Israel. Methods: A workshop presented at the 5th International ELSI Congress discussed implementation of cascade testing in the three countries based on exchange of data and experiences from the international CASCADE cohort. Results: Analyses focused on models of accessing genetic services (clinic-based versus population-based screening), and models of initiating cascade testing (patient-mediated dissemination versus provider-mediated dissemination of testing results to relatives). The legal framework of each country, organization of the healthcare system, and socio-cultural norms determined the utility and value of genetic information gained from cascade testing. Conclusion: The juxtaposition of individual versus public health interests generates significant ELSI controversies associated with cascade testing, which compromise access to genetic services and the utility and value of genetic information, despite national healthcare/universal coverage.

Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, providing relatives the opportunity for early detection and prevention of cancer. The current standard is for patients to contact and encourage relatives (patient-mediated contact) to undergo counseling and testing. Direct relative contact by the medical team or testing laboratory has shown promise but is complicated by privacy laws and lack of infrastructure. We sought to compare outcomes associated with patient-mediated and direct relative contact for hereditary cancer cascade genetic counseling and testing in the first meta-analysis on this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020134276). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer cascade testing. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Among relatives included in the meta-analysis, 48% (95% CI, 38 to 58) underwent cascade genetic counseling and 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) cascade genetic testing. Compared with the patient-mediated approach, direct relative contact resulted in significantly higher uptake of genetic counseling for all relatives (63% [95% CI, 49 to 75] v 35% [95% CI, 24 to 48]) and genetic testing for first-degree relatives (62% [95% CI, 49 to 73] v 40% [95% CI, 32 to 48]). Methods of direct contact included telephone calls, letters, and e-mails; respective rates of genetic testing completion were 61% (95% CI, 51 to 70), 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59), and 48% (95% CI, 45 to 50).

CONCLUSION

Most relatives at risk for hereditary cancer do not undergo cascade genetic counseling and testing, forgoing potentially life-saving medical interventions. Compared with patient-mediated contact, direct relative contact increased rates of cascade genetic counseling and testing, arguing for a shift in the care delivery paradigm, to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

30 year experience of index case identification and outcomes of cascade testing in high-risk breast and colorectal cancer predisposition genes

It is 30 years since the first diagnostic cancer predisposition gene (CPG) test in the Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine (MCGM), providing opportunities for cancer prevention, early detection and targeted treatments in index cases and at-risk family members. Here, we present time trends (1990-2020) of identification of index cases with a germline CPG variant and numbers of subsequent cascade tests, for 15 high-risk breast and gastro-intestinal tract cancer-associated CPGs: BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, PTEN, TP53, APC, BMPR1a, CDH1, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, SMAD4, STK11 and MUTYH. We recorded 2082 positive index case diagnostic screening tests, generating 3216 positive and 3140 negative family cascade (non-index) tests. This is equivalent to an average of 3.05 subsequent cascade tests per positive diagnostic index test, with 1.54 positive and 1.51 negative non-index tests per family. The CPGs with the highest numbers of non-index positive cases identified on cascade testing were BRCA1/2 (n = 1999) and the mismatch repair CPGs associated with Lynch Syndrome (n = 731). These data are important for service provision and health economic assessment of CPG diagnostic testing, in terms of cancer prevention and early detection strategies, and identifying those likely to benefit from targeted treatment strategies.

Intention to Inform Relatives, Rates of Cascade Testing, and Preference for Patient-Mediated Communication in Families Concerned with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome: The Swiss CASCADE Cohort

Cascade screening for Tier 1 cancer genetic conditions is a significant public health intervention because it identifies untested relatives of individuals known to carry pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome (LS). The Swiss CASCADE is a family-based, open-ended cohort, including carriers of HBOC- and LS-associated pathogenic variants and their relatives. This paper describes rates of cascade screening in relatives from HBOC- and LS- harboring families, examines carriers' preferences for communication of testing results, and describes theory-based predictors of intention to invite relatives to a cascade screening program. Information has been provided by 304 index cases and 115 relatives recruited from September 2017 to December 2021. On average, 10 relatives per index case were potentially eligible for cascade screening. Approximately 65% of respondents wanted to invite relatives to the cohort, and approximately 50% indicated a preference for patient-mediated communication of testing results, possibly with the assistance of digital technology. Intention to invite relatives was higher for first- compared to second- and third-degree relatives, but was not different between syndromes or based on relatives' gender. The family environment and carrying pathogenic variants predicts intention to invite relatives. Information helps optimize delivery of tailored genetic services.

A tailored approach to informing relatives at risk of inherited cardiac conditions: results of a randomised controlled trial

If undetected, inherited cardiac conditions can lead to sudden cardiac death, while treatment options are available. Predictive DNA testing is therefore advised for at-risk relatives, and probands are currently asked to inform relatives about this. However, fewer than half of relatives attend genetic counselling. In this trial, we compared a tailored approach to informing relatives, in which probands were asked whether they preferred relatives to be informed by themselves or by the genetic counsellor, with current practice. Our primary outcome was uptake of genetic counselling in relatives in the first year after test result disclosure. Secondary outcomes were evaluation of the approach and impact on psychological/family functioning measured 3 (T1) and 9 (T2) months post-disclosure via telephone interviews and questionnaires. We included 96 probands; 482 relatives were eligible for counselling and genetic testing. We observed no significant difference in uptake of genetic counselling between the control (38%) and the intervention (37%) group (p = 0.973). Nor were there significant differences between groups in impact on family/psychological functioning. Significantly more probands in the tailored group were satisfied (p = 0.001) and felt supported (p = 0.003) by the approach, although they also felt somewhat coerced to inform relatives (p < 0.001) and perceived room for improvement (p < 0.001). To conclude, we observed no differences in uptake and impact on family/psychological functioning between the current and tailored approach, but probands in the tailored group more often felt satisfied. Further research on barriers to relatives attending genetic counselling and on how to optimize the provision of a tailored approach is needed.

A genetic researcher's devil's dilemma: Warn relatives about their genetic risk or respect confidentiality agreements with research participants?

BACKGROUND

With advances in sequencing technologies, increasing numbers of people are being informed about a genetic disease identified in their family. In current practice, probands (the first person in a family in whom a genetic predisposition is identified) are asked to inform at-risk relatives about the diagnosis. However, previous research has shown that relatives are sometimes not informed due to barriers such as family conflicts. Research on family communication in genetic diseases aims to explore the difficulties encountered in informing relatives and to identify ways to support probands in this.

MAIN BODY

Research on family communication may also reveal that participants did not inform their relatives about the risk of a serious genetic condition, even when preventive and treatment options are available. Researchers may then face a dilemma: Do they need to warn at-risk relatives about the finding? Or do they keep silent due to prior confidentiality agreements with study participants?

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the absolute confidence promised to research participants outweighs the interests of their relatives, even though it can be claimed that relatives at risk of a genetic disease do, in principle, have a right to know information collected about their health. Not respecting confidentiality agreements could cause distrust between researchers and research participants and possibly harm the relationship between probands and relatives. Relatives' health interests can still be taken into account without jeopardizing participant trust, by considering alternative scenarios, including sharing general study findings on the barriers participants experience with their healthcare professionals and by offering participants psychosocial support for family communication.

Feasibility of a Traceback Approach for Using Pathology Specimens to Facilitate Genetic Testing in the Genetic Risk Analysis in Ovarian Cancer (GRACE) Study Protocol

Guidelines currently state that genetic testing is clinically indicated for all individuals diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Individuals with a prior diagnosis of ovarian cancer who have not received genetic testing represent missed opportunities to identify individuals with inherited high-risk cancer variants. For deceased individuals, post-mortem genetic testing of pathology specimens allows surviving family members to receive important genetic risk information. The Genetic Risk Assessment in Ovarian Cancer (GRACE) study aims to address this significant healthcare gap using a "traceback testing" approach to identify individuals with a prior diagnosis of ovarian cancer and offer genetic risk information to them and their family members. This study will assess the potential ethical and privacy concerns related to an ovarian cancer traceback testing approach in the context of patients who are deceased, followed by implementation and evaluation of the feasibility of an ovarian cancer traceback testing approach using tumor registries and archived pathology tissue. Descriptive and statistical analyses will assess health system and patient characteristics associated with the availability of pathology tissue and compare the ability to contact and uptake of genetic testing between patients who are living and deceased. The results of this study will inform the implementation of future traceback programs.

A Focus Group Study of Perceptions of Genetic Risk Disclosure in Members of the Public in Sweden: "I'll Phone the Five Closest Ones, but What Happens to the Other Ten?"

This study explores perceptions and preferences on receiving genetic risk information about hereditary cancer risk in members of the Swedish public. We conducted qualitative content analysis of five focus group discussions with participants (n = 18) aged between 24 and 71 years, recruited from various social contexts. Two prominent phenomena surfaced around the interplay between the three stakeholders involved in risk disclosure: the individual, healthcare, and the relative at risk. First, there is a genuine will to share risk information that can benefit others, even if this is difficult and causes discomfort. Second, when the duty to inform becomes overwhelming, compromises are made, such as limiting one’s own responsibility of disclosure or projecting the main responsibility onto another party. In conclusion, our results reveal a discrepancy between public expectations and the actual services offered by clinical genetics. These expectations paired with desire for a more personalized process and shared decision-making highlight a missing link in today’s risk communication and suggest a need for developed clinical routines with stronger healthcare–patient collaboration. Future research needs to investigate the views of genetic professionals on how to address these expectations to co-create a transparent risk disclosure process which can realize the full potential of personalized prevention.

Genotype-first approach to the detection of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk, and effects of risk disclosure to biobank participants

Genotype-first approach allows to systematically identify carriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 genes conferring a high risk of familial breast and ovarian cancer. Participants of the Estonian biobank have expressed support for the disclosure of clinically significant findings. With an Estonian biobank cohort, we applied a genotype-first approach, contacted carriers, and offered return of results with genetic counseling. We evaluated participants' responses to and the clinical utility of the reporting of actionable genetic findings. Twenty-two of 40 contacted carriers of 17 pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants responded and chose to receive results. Eight of these 22 participants qualified for high-risk assessment based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Twenty of 21 counseled participants appreciated being contacted. Relatives of 10 participants underwent cascade screening. Five of 16 eligible female BRCA1/2 variant carriers chose to undergo risk-reducing surgery, and 10 adhered to surveillance recommendations over the 30-month follow-up period. We recommend the return of results to population-based biobank participants; this approach could be viewed as a model for population-wide genetic testing. The genotype-first approach permits the identification of individuals at high risk who would not be identified by application of an approach based on personal and family histories only.